Air Combat: This NEEDS to be fixed

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Air Combat: This NEEDS to be fixed

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> Air Combat: This NEEDS to be fixed

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Air Combat: This NEEDS to be fixed - 7/4/2002 9:42:33 AM

HirooOnoda

Posts: 9
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline

I'm not sure that it has been brought up on this list (if it has I haven't seen it), but there is something horribly wrong with the air combat routines when one side or the other has overwhelming numbers of planes on its side.

Example 1: 50 zeros on CAP over my carriers (these boys aren't slackers and their fatuige is in the 20's) take on 7 Wildcats and 10 SBDs. One would expect the 17 American planes to be toast or turn back at best. Alas, one or two American planes will be shot down with one or two Japanese planes also damaged or shot down.

Example 2: 67 Zeros from Rabaul escorting 23 Bettys run into 5 P400s and 13 Wildcats routinely finds one or two P400s or Wildcats shot down.

I have yet to see a real hair-ball slaughter occur in air-to-air combat. Actually, the results seem more believeable if the the air groups are roughly equal.

Am I the only one who has seen this?

Hiroo

Post #: 1

my results - 7/4/2002 9:55:34 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, My stikes of 10 fighters and 20 bombers going against 120+ fighters on CAP result in 1 fighter and 6 bomber surving the encounter (and then the USN flak shoots down remaining bombers) Next day 25 fighter and 33 bomber result in 1 fighter and 23 bomber surviving air battle. (I think 120+ fighter killing first 23 and then 33 AC in air to air pretty good)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 2

- 7/4/2002 10:17:29 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

IMHO nothing needs to be fixed here. From a previous post of mine :

People, including myself, tend to forget (if they ever knew) that the ratio of planes damaged and shot down to those engaged is very very low, and was throughout the war. We tend to forget because we've all played those fabulous flightsims where you can shoot down 12 Stukas single handedly over the Channel.

Battle of Britain : on days when upwards of 1000 fighter planes were engaged at one time, you would get on average about 15-30 fighters damaged and an equal number shot down (this is a total for both sides). There might have been more than one engagment per plane, maybe less. Basically, this works out to a damage+shootdown/engagement ratio of about 4-6 to 100. Restated, during the Battle of Britain you would expect, on average, to get 4 planes either damaged or shot down for every 100 plane to plane fighter engagements.

I used the Battle of Britain as an example because it has the most data. There are variations. Later in the war, when CAP control was more effective, and pilots were better trained and more experienced, the ratio could go up.

Look at it another way : Take a look at some of the aces in the war like Bong or Sakurai or some British or German aces. Sure, they have impressive stats, 20, 40 or more shot down. But how many sorties did they go on? How many engagements did they fight? Its in the hundreds for most of them, some more than 2000 (the Germans and Japanese in particular had very large sortie numbers for their aces). They fit this 4-6 to 100 ratio too. The vast majority of pilots, if they had an air-to-air engagement, were very lucky just to get a HIT, much less a shootdown.

If you are talking about bombers, the ratio is a bit higher because bombers are basically slower and larger, making a bigger target. On some of the massive allied air raids in Europe where you had over a thousand bombers, several hundred escort, there would be maybe a few dozen or if they (the defending fighters) were lucky around 100 fighters attempting to engage these formations at one time, or over the course of several waves. Still, most of these types of attack still fit the basic rule of thumb ratio 5 to 100.

There were notable exceptions to this ratio rule of thumb, such as the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, but thats just it; they were exceptions.

Don't expect all of the air encounters in the game to rack up large numbers of kills all at once, history didn't play that.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 3

- 7/5/2002 1:14:23 PM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Dgaad
on to the Grog part

Hartmann, 352 kills in 825 fights
Barkhorn, 310 kills in 1104 fights
Rall, 275 kills in 700 + fights
Kittel, 267 kills in 583 fights
Nowotny, 258 kills in 442 fights

okay those are the top of the list boys, lets drop down some

Priller, 101 kills in 307 fights
Mayer, 102 kills in 353 fights
Schroer, 114 kills in 197 fights (may not be fair, believe he is a nightjager)
Birkner, 117 kills in 284 fights
Norz, 118 kills in 332 fights

and going off the top of my head, forget the man's name, but one man shot down something like 81 planes in 80 fights (he was part of a quiz on the most productive fighter pilot)

in other words, I think your set up is flawed, you are takeing total planes in the air, and then takeing the kill rate, not the number of planes in combat action

some of the BG's who went on the BB raids, had milk runs, while other BG's were slaughter (sort of like the Kessel Raid, over all, very light losses for the size of the raid, unless you were with the oversized BG who lost more planes then they should of had in the air)

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 4

- 7/5/2002 3:02:27 PM

a300mech

Posts: 25
Joined: 4/18/2001
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Status: offline

The main issue (If we want to be as close to realistic as possible) is the killer instinct. In any group of human beings you put together only a few will have the hunter's heart as it were. Although pilots tend to be an aggressive, and motivated group, it is aggression, and motivation of a much higher order which gives us the men who go out of their way to seek out, and then rush, hammer and tongs at the enemy. As opposed to those pilots that might tend to hang back on the fringes of the battle. "Waiting to see what develops" (Though Von Ricthofen used this technique to great advantage, he still had that hunter's heart. And was not squeamish about swooping down for the kill.).
It is the difference between aces such as the great Marsielle who closed to within a few feet of many of his victims, and a frightened kid, who may just spray his target from a thousand yards, and hope for a few hits.

This killer instinct should not be confused by the way, with morale. They are distinct factors. Morale is an indication of emotional state, it has nothing to do with whether or not a man has a passion to hunt, and kill. Anyway, just my two cents. :)

_____________________________

Darryl

War Plan Orange, US R-class fanboi
Insert fancy artwork of R-class boat here:

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 5

Re - 7/5/2002 6:57:34 PM

MarkS

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/4/2002
Status: offline

I think that the kill ratios may be right, but:
One of the things I've seen alot is that a small number of attackers somehow get through huge caps and make hits on ships that are VERY well protected by cap.
I had a carrier group just one hex south of Gili Gili and was using ALL of Gili's air cap to cover (Long Range Cap) the Carrier Group. The reusult was 100+ fighters stagered at altitudes between 6k and 12k feet plus the carriers own cap. Still a force of 6 Mitchells and a few Wirraways got through the cap, damaged 2 Zero's and destroyed another and scored TWO bomb hits on one of my carriers. My Cap destroyed 1 and damaged 3. The attackers came in at 6k feet.
I suppose that this COULD happen but it shouldn't happen very often even though I've allready seen these kind of results a few times.
Just my 2 cents,

I love this game.

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 6

- 7/5/2002 7:13:48 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

I had pretty much the opposite experience from Mark S recently. My escorts outnumbered the CAP 44 to 15 yet barely had any kills. They got through my escorts and nailed several of my bombers. My 40+ remaining bombers, all highly experienced and low fatigued then proceeded to all but miss an airbase from 5000 feet in partly cloudy weather. Such is war.

My point is that on any one encounter there appears to be a wide range of possible outcomes. That is as it should be. If the loss results of the campaign are reasonable (i.e. historically believable) then there is no problem to be fixed.

IMO it would be more useful for people to post losses, not clouded by FOW, from completed campaigns before asking for changes one way or the other. I suppose a trend might be seen earlier, say half way through, but posting results from one or two combats isn't compelling.

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 7

- 7/5/2002 7:19:44 PM

Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: V�ster�s,Sweden
Status: offline

Hi

People tend to remember when things go wrong because they suffered a loss in the game. The first idea that comes to mind is that there surely must be something wrong with the game. I have had my ups and downs in CAP action just like in a real war. This game more than anything before takes advantage of luck and chance. It just cant be more exciting than that.
Dan

_____________________________

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 8

CAP Intercepts - 7/5/2002 8:34:46 PM

Scouters

Posts: 75
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Status: offline

Its also my understanding that the number given for each intercepting fighter group is the number that are assigned to CAP, not the number that are actually at the correct vector and the ideal altitude. Only a fraction of those assigned to CAP will actually be elegible to engage the incoming raid. What this proportion is depends on many variables not the least of which is the difference in altitude between the CAP and the incoming raid. If fighters have to climb to intercept there will be a greater penalty. Local weather conditions (overcast, cloudy) also play a significant role. With the latest patch you should receive message letting you know about local conditions and how your fighters engage (ie. 'climbing to engage' vs. "bouncing"). Hopefully this may explain at least some of the variability you've seen.

-Scouters

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 9

- 7/6/2002 2:36:16 AM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Scouters
but part of the complaint shouldbe why, at Lunga, they had a hour warning that planes were comeing, and the a half hour warning and then they had radar, and also the fact that the distance to be traveled the JP were almost always on time and didn't very the time of there attacks

so basicly, you knew that at 12:30 today, there was a chance for a raid to come in, at 11:30, you got warning calls from the Coastwatchers, that planes were takeing off and comeing down the slot, at 12:00 you got another set of warnings from the Coastwatchers closer to the base

now are you saying that most of the fighters are still sitting on the runway at 12:30 ?

there were all kinds of complaints that the Aces and the higher ranks, flew the good hours, while the lower ranks, had the early and late shifts

plus at the Alt the AI flys at, how much time do you need to climb 6000 ft

in the pre patch verison, a 3 plane raid would get slaughtered, now they slip in

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 10

- 7/6/2002 3:30:42 AM

segorn

Posts: 38
Joined: 6/30/2002
Status: offline

I don't think the problem lies in the kill ratios. It was *very* rare for a strike to get totally obliterated, no matter what the odds were.

The issue, in my opinion, is that the game doesn't take into account a pilot/squadron leaders very rational and historically proven ability to *abort* a suicidal strike.

If the odds were bad enough, plenty of historical strikes flat out aborted their mission. Equally commonly, attackers would bomb long or short so as not to get deep into the air defense envelope of the target.

Ultimately that's the reason that tiny historical strikes didn't take 100% casualties against superior defenses; they were not generally pressed home.

In the game, all attacks appear to be pressed home regardless. In order to assure that historically reasonable casualty figures came out, they jimmied the kill algorythms in the case where one side heavily outnumbers the other.

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 11

- 7/6/2002 3:49:14 AM

HARD_SARGE

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/27/2002
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline

Hi Segorn

I think you are wrong here, a Bomber unit, that is either low on morale or loseing a lot of planes will give a report that it is aborting the mission and turning for home, if this is the only unit in the raid, you will jump to the bomb run and nothing will happen (IE show 5 Bettys over the base, but no bombs fall)

now then I have seen the report and watch as the rest of the bombers end up getting shot down, and also see the other bomber units keep comeing in

HARD_Sarge

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 12

- 7/6/2002 4:28:40 AM

segorn

Posts: 38
Joined: 6/30/2002
Status: offline

Thanks Sarge, I never noticed such a message but I'll take your word it was there.

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 13

- 7/6/2002 4:57:43 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Since the 1.11 patch, i too have noticed a greater degree of what i would call "linear-ness" in air fights where there are either equal or greater numbers of fighters in ratio to the bombers being escorted...even if the escorts (and their charges) are outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1.....the result 99.9% of the time (so far in dozens of engagements) has been moderate damage/loss to the fighters but very very little damage to the enemy bombers by the intercepting CAP.

This is a marked difference from 1.0 when either an unescorted or a bomber group with a badly outnumbered escort was intercepted by a CAP.

I agree with Dgaad in general that a gamer's expectations of higgidy piggidy where air combat is concerned are often far greater than what one would expect given the numbers actually seen as the results tally in.....however this sheer linear-ness or "sameness" of the results in attack after attack, in mark contrast to the results seen in 1.0 do cause me some concern.

It is frustrating when one takes the time and effort to put together a strong carrier force with well trained and rested pilots, see it put 60-80+ fighters in the air and find that *consistantly* that even a pitiful 20 plane group (say 14 F4F's and 6 SBD's) will 100% of the time get through with 50% or more of the SBD's able to attack.

This happens too, even if there are no torpedo planes present to "theoretically" split the CAP defenders at vastly different altitudes.

This has so far happened to me 100% of the time during my current drive on Luganaville. Every piffling attack, no matter how outnumbered, got through with most of the bombers intact. Something does seem to be on the out here. A well positioned CAP 'should' have the ability or at least the chance of overwhelming an escort and overwhelming a strike in general if outnumbered badly enough. This is not happening *at all* in 1.11.

I was also suprised to find that the new air routines are most definately a case of "be careful what you wish for" as i quickly found the new "info messages" during air combat becoming tedious and time consuming until eventually i reduced the air to air msg delay to nearly zero because it was taking too **** long to resolve all those combats!!!! I'd actually like to see a return to the more brief verbose seen in 1.0 :)

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 14

- 7/6/2002 11:28:31 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Genda : "Admiral, a group of 12 unescorted SBD Dauntlesses appear to have broken through our CAP of 60 fighters."

Nagumo : "This was information that is now quite obvious, Commander Genda, since I am looking at three of His Imperial Majesty's carriers on fire and sinking."

Genda : "I can't explain it Admiral. Perhaps its a new American weapon!"

Nagumo : "I doubt that. Perhaps it was your fighters trying for easy kills on the hapless American Torpedo bombers and forgetting their duty to the Emperor."

Unknown Ensign : "Commander Genda, perhaps we could petition the Emperor to alter the air to air routines so this doesn't happen anymore."

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 15

- 7/6/2002 11:30:21 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HARD_SARGE
[B]Hi Segorn

I think you are wrong here, a Bomber unit, that is either low on morale or loseing a lot of planes will give a report that it is aborting the mission and turning for home, if this is the only unit in the raid, you will jump to the bomb run and nothing will happen (IE show 5 Bettys over the base, but no bombs fall)

now then I have seen the report and watch as the rest of the bombers end up getting shot down, and also see the other bomber units keep comeing in

HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes if one actually sits through all the verbose messaging, you'll find that quite often bomber and even fighter groups will "break off" when their morale is low, they've already taken alot of casualties, or they are hopelessly outnumbered.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 16

- 7/6/2002 12:59:02 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]Genda : "Admiral, a group of 12 unescorted SBD Dauntlesses appear to have broken through our CAP of 60 fighters."

Nagumo : "This was information that is now quite obvious, Commander Genda, since I am looking at three of His Imperial Majesty's carriers on fire and sinking."

Genda : "I can't explain it Admiral. Perhaps its a new American weapon!"

Nagumo : "I doubt that. Perhaps it was your fighters trying for easy kills on the hapless American Torpedo bombers and forgetting their duty to the Emperor."

Unknown Ensign : "Commander Genda, perhaps we could petition the Emperor to alter the air to air routines so this doesn't happen anymore." [/B][/QUOTE]

You know Dgaad.....buddy ol' pal......you really shouldn't act so suprised when Matrix coders and developers dont react to your "suggestions" in a way that satisfies you...given your style of posting to them and others on this board.

You also prove by this crude post that you dont read very well either. I covered the "point" you are attempting to make in this little satire of yours.

I also find it interesting how you appear to demand respectful attention to points you bring up, such as in your (now famous) demand post that certain issues you have with the game be addressed and "fixed" 'or else' but when someone other than yourself has a concern on a game mechanic in an area where you think its fine, you scorn them with an inflexible, fanatical gleam.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 17

- 7/6/2002 1:46:29 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]

You know Dgaad.....buddy ol' pal......you really shouldn't act so suprised when Matrix coders and developers dont react to your "suggestions" in a way that satisfies you...given your style of posting to them and others on this board.

You also prove by this crude post that you dont read very well either. I covered the "point" you are attempting to make in this little satire of yours.

I also find it interesting how you appear to demand respectful attention to points you bring up, such as in your (now famous) demand post that certain issues you have with the game be addressed and "fixed" 'or else' but when someone other than yourself has a concern on a game mechanic in an area where you think its fine, you scorn them with an inflexible, fanatical gleam.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you read too much into it, Nikki. Laugh a little.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 18

- 7/6/2002 3:50:47 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

I think you read too much into it, Nikki. Laugh a little. [/B][/QUOTE]

I found nothing humorous in it to laugh about, and i consider myself to be pretty easy going in the chuckles dept. Even had a "smiley face" been attached to it, one would still find it hard not to take some offense at it.

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 19

- 7/6/2002 3:52:22 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]

I found nothing humorous in it to laugh about, and i consider myself to be pretty easy going in the chuckles dept. Even had a "smiley face" been attached to it, one would still find it hard not to take some offense at it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I'm taking you off my "must satisfy" list.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to HirooOnoda)

Post #: 20

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Tech Support >> Air Combat: This NEEDS to be fixed

Page: [1]